ATPase activity of DFCP1 controls selective autophagy

Cellular homeostasis is governed by removal of damaged organelles and protein aggregates by selective autophagy mediated by cargo adaptors such as p62/SQSTM1. Autophagosomes can assemble in specialized cup-shaped regions of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) known as omegasomes, which are characterized by the presence of the ER protein DFCP1/ZFYVE1. The function of DFCP1 is unknown, as are the mechanisms of omegasome formation and constriction. Here, we demonstrate that DFCP1 is an ATPase that is activated by membrane binding and dimerizes in an ATP-dependent fashion. Whereas depletion of DFCP1 has a minor effect on bulk autophagic flux, DFCP1 is required to maintain the autophagic flux of p62 under both fed and starved conditions, and this is dependent on its ability to bind and hydrolyse ATP. While DFCP1 mutants defective in ATP binding or hydrolysis localize to forming omegasomes, these omegasomes fail to constrict properly in a size-dependent manner. Consequently, the release of nascent autophagosomes from large omegasomes is markedly delayed. While knockout of DFCP1 does not affect bulk autophagy, it inhibits selective autophagy, including aggrephagy, mitophagy and micronucleophagy. We conclude that DFCP1 mediates ATPase-driven constriction of large omegasomes to release autophagosomes for selective autophagy

LRRK2 to the rescue of damaged endomembranes

Mutations in several genes encoding for lysosomal proteins are involved in Parkinson's disease (PD). In this issue, Herbst et al (2020) show that PD-related leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) is activated in response to pathogen or membranolytic drug-induced damage of phagolysosomes and lysosomes in macrophages, and regulates endolysosomal homeostasis by controlling the balance between membrane repair and degradation

Protrudin-mediated ER–endosome contact sites promote MT1-MMP exocytosis and cell invasion

Cancer cells break tissue barriers by use of small actin-rich membrane protrusions called invadopodia. Complete invadopodia maturation depends on protrusion outgrowth and the targeted delivery of the matrix metalloproteinase MT1-MMP via endosomal transport by mechanisms that are not known. Here, we show that the ER protein Protrudin orchestrates invadopodia maturation and function. Protrudin formed contact sites with MT1-MMP–positive endosomes that contained the RAB7-binding Kinesin-1 adaptor FYCO1, and depletion of RAB7, FYCO1, or Protrudin inhibited MT1-MMP–dependent extracellular matrix degradation and cancer cell invasion by preventing anterograde translocation and exocytosis of MT1-MMP. Moreover, when endosome translocation or exocytosis was inhibited by depletion of Protrudin or Synaptotagmin VII, respectively, invadopodia were unable to expand and elongate. Conversely, when Protrudin was overexpressed, noncancerous cells developed prominent invadopodia-like protrusions and showed increased matrix degradation and invasion. Thus, Protrudin-mediated ER–endosome contact sites promote cell invasion by facilitating translocation of MT1-MMP–laden endosomes to the plasma membrane, enabling both invadopodia outgrowth and MT1-MMP exocytosis

Plasma membrane damage causes NLRP3 activation and pyroptosis during Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection

Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a global health problem in part as a result of extensive cytotoxicity caused by the infection. Here, we show how M. tuberculosis causes caspase-1/NLRP3/gasdermin D-mediated pyroptosis of human monocytes and macrophages. A type VII secretion system (ESX-1) mediated, contact-induced plasma membrane damage response occurs during phagocytosis of bacteria. Alternatively, this can occur from the cytosolic side of the plasma membrane after phagosomal rupture in infected macrophages. This damage causes K+ efflux and activation of NLRP3-dependent IL-1β release and pyroptosis, facilitating the spread of bacteria to neighbouring cells. A dynamic interplay of pyroptosis with ESCRT-mediated plasma membrane repair also occurs. This dual plasma membrane damage seems to be a common mechanism for NLRP3 activators that function through lysosomal damage

Plasma membrane damage causes NLRP3 activation and pyroptosis during Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection

Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a global health problem in part as a result of extensive cytotoxicity caused by the infection. Here, we show how M. tuberculosis causes caspase-1/NLRP3/gasdermin D-mediated pyroptosis of human monocytes and macrophages. A type VII secretion system (ESX-1) mediated, contact-induced plasma membrane damage response occurs during phagocytosis of bacteria. Alternatively, this can occur from the cytosolic side of the plasma membrane after phagosomal rupture in infected macrophages. This damage causes K+ efflux and activation of NLRP3-dependent IL-1β release and pyroptosis, facilitating the spread of bacteria to neighbouring cells. A dynamic interplay of pyroptosis with ESCRT-mediated plasma membrane repair also occurs. This dual plasma membrane damage seems to be a common mechanism for NLRP3 activators that function through lysosomal damage

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate, and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response